openspec_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Display,' which is a mild implication of a read-only operation. It does not explain what happens for missing changes, the output format beyond 'status,' or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what 'status' includes, but it does not. It leaves unanswered questions about the format of the status output, failure handling, and how the json flag affects the result, making it minimally complete for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes both parameters (changeName and json) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating that a change is involved and not enriching the json parameter's semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Display') and names the resource ('artifact completion status for a change'), clearly stating the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like openspec_show, but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openspec_show or openspec_list. The description only implies status-checking for a specific change and does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.